# Intesar S. -- Torts 009: SHEP Score Output (Both Attempts)

---

## ATTEMPT 1 -- Band 2/6
**Submitted:** May 28, 2026 2:47 PM ET | **Words:** 1,119 | **Time:** 45:41

### Aggregate Scores

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Band | 2/6 |
| Band Descriptor | Significant gaps -- below passing threshold |
| Raw Score | 0.301 |
| Calibrated Score | 0.301 |
| Confidence | 0.367 |
| Boundary Distance | 0.049 |

### Component Scores

| Component | Raw | Display |
|-----------|-----|---------|
| Issue Spotting | 35% | 35% |
| Fact Usage | 35% | 14% |
| Rule Statement | 28% | 28% |
| Conclusion | 35% | 35% |
| Analysis Depth | 24.5% | 9.8% |

### Whole Essay Modifiers
Coherence: 0 | Off-point: 0 | Incompleteness: 0

---

### Issue 1: Duty to Act / Special Relationship
**Strength: Weak | Score: 0.00 | Recognized: NO**

| Checklist | Pass | Confidence | Rationale |
|-----------|------|------------|-----------|
| Spotting | FAIL | 0.0 | Does not mention or reference the duty to act or special relationship doctrine |
| Rule | FAIL | 0.0 | Does not state the rule regarding the duty to act or special relationships |
| Facts | FAIL | 0.0 | Does not identify facts relevant to the duty to act issue |
| Analysis | FAIL | 0.0 | Does not provide any analysis regarding the duty to act |
| Conclusion | FAIL | 0.0 | Does not reach a conclusion regarding the duty to act |

---

### Issue 2: Negligent Entrustment and Negligent Hiring
**Strength: Weak | Score: 0.00 | Recognized: NO**

| Checklist | Pass | Confidence | Rationale |
|-----------|------|------------|-----------|
| Spotting | FAIL | 0.3 | Mentions the club's hiring in passing but does not identify the legal theory of negligent hiring or entrustment |
| Rule | FAIL | 0.1 | Does not state the elements or rule for negligent hiring or entrustment |
| Facts | FAIL | 0.2 | Mentions hiring but does not cite facts relevant to specific elements |
| Analysis | FAIL | 0.2 | Does not connect facts to elements of negligent hiring or entrustment |
| Conclusion | FAIL | 0.2 | Does not reach a conclusion on this theory |

---

### Issue 3: Wrongful Death and Survival Actions
**Strength: Strong | Score: 0.90 | Recognized: YES**

| Checklist | Pass | Confidence | Rationale |
|-----------|------|------------|-----------|
| Spotting | PASS | 1.0 | Explicitly identifies wrongful death claim |
| Rule | PASS | 0.8 | Provides rule identifying need for death of family member and negligent causation |
| Facts | PASS | 1.0 | Identifies relevant parties and facts of death |
| Analysis | PASS | 0.7 | Connects mother's knowledge of son's misconduct to negligent causation of death |
| Conclusion | PASS | 1.0 | Concludes the claim would be successful |

---

### Structural Assessment (Attempt 1)
**Overall: Adequate**

| Sub-Assessment | Level | Rationale |
|---------------|-------|-----------|
| IRAC Separation | Adequate | Mixes legal conclusions with factual assertions; transitions clunky |
| Organization by Call | Strong | Clearly follows call structure with headers |
| Conclusion Quality | Weak | Bare assertions, lack synthesis |

**SHEP Eyes:** "You have a good grasp of the big picture by following the call structure, but your analysis needs to be tighter. Right now, you often state a rule and then jump straight to a conclusion."

---

### Overall Feedback (Attempt 1)

This essay has critical problems that would likely result in a failing score. Your performance is characterized by a failure to identify key legal issues and a tendency to provide conclusory statements rather than rigorous legal analysis. On the bar exam, a 'conclusion' is worth almost nothing without the 'analysis' that precedes it. You must adopt a structured approach: state the rule, define its elements, and then explicitly apply the facts to each element.

**Issue 1 (Duty to Act):** This issue was entirely omitted from your analysis. On the bar exam, failing to identify a major legal issue like the duty to act -- especially when the facts involve a potential special relationship or a failure to intervene -- results in significant point loss.

**Issue 2 (Negligent Entrustment/Hiring):** While you mentioned the club's hiring of the employee, your treatment is critically underdeveloped. You failed to articulate the specific elements of negligent hiring or entrustment.

**Issue 3 (Wrongful Death/Survival):** Your analysis of wrongful death is marred by conflating vicarious liability with direct liability and misstating the scope of parental liability.

---
---

## ATTEMPT 2 -- Band 4/6
**Submitted:** May 28, 2026 4:16 PM ET | **Words:** 824 | **Time:** 36:56

### Aggregate Scores

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Band | 4/6 |
| Band Descriptor | Adequate -- at or near passing threshold |
| Raw Score | 0.743 |
| Calibrated Score | 0.773 |
| Confidence | 0.793 |
| Boundary Distance | 0.027 |

### Component Scores

| Component | Raw | Display |
|-----------|-----|---------|
| Issue Spotting | 100% | 100% |
| Fact Usage | 80.5% | 80.5% |
| Rule Statement | 76.5% | 76.5% |
| Conclusion | 89.5% | 89.5% |
| Analysis Depth | 50.5% | 35.4% |

### Whole Essay Modifiers
Coherence: 0 | Off-point: 0 | Incompleteness: 0

---

### Issue 1: Duty to Act / Special Relationship
**Strength: Satisfactory | Score: 0.78 | Recognized: YES**

| Checklist | Pass | Confidence | Rationale |
|-----------|------|------------|-----------|
| Spotting | PASS | 1.0 | Explicitly identifies the No Duty to Rescue / Special Relationship Exception |
| Rule | PASS | 0.8 | States the general rule (no duty to rescue trespasser) and the special relationship exception for those hired to perform safety services |
| Facts | PASS | 0.7 | Identifies Gopher and Leo as parties in the duty to rescue analysis |
| Analysis | PASS | 0.4 | Connects facts to rule by asserting trespasser falls under exception, but analysis is brief and lacks detailed explanation |
| Conclusion | PASS | 1.0 | Explicitly concludes a duty to save Leo was created |

---

### Issue 2: Negligent Entrustment and Negligent Hiring
**Strength: Satisfactory | Score: 0.90 | Recognized: YES**

| Checklist | Pass | Confidence | Rationale |
|-----------|------|------------|-----------|
| Spotting | PASS | 1.0 | Explicitly identifies both Negligent Hiring and Negligent Entrustment as issues |
| Rule | PASS | 0.8 | Provides the rule for negligent hiring (employer liable for tortious conduct of unfit employee) |
| Facts | PASS | 1.0 | Identifies the failure to conduct a background check and the employee's unfit past |
| Analysis | PASS | 0.7 | Connects the failure to background check to conclusion of negligent hiring |
| Conclusion | PASS | 1.0 | Concludes employer will be found liable for negligent hiring |

---

### Issue 3: Wrongful Death and Survival Actions
**Strength: Satisfactory | Score: 0.70 | Recognized: YES**

| Checklist | Pass | Confidence | Rationale |
|-----------|------|------------|-----------|
| Spotting | PASS | 1.0 | Explicitly identifies wrongful death |
| Rule | PASS | 0.7 | Provides general rule including causation, negligence, and damages types (somewhat informal) |
| Facts | PASS | 0.7 | Identifies death of Mr. Crow, loss of life partner, actions of Fox and son |
| Analysis | PASS | 0.4 | Connects death and loss of consortium to wrongful death claim, but analysis is somewhat conclusory |
| Conclusion | PASS | 0.7 | Concludes wrongful death claim would be successful |

---

### Structural Assessment (Attempt 2)
**Overall: Good**

| Sub-Assessment | Level | Rationale |
|---------------|-------|-----------|
| IRAC Separation | Strong | Consistently separates rule statements from fact application; logical flow easy to track |
| Organization by Call | Strong | Clearly organized by prompt calls |
| Conclusion Quality | Adequate | Generally clear, but occasionally repeats analysis rather than synthesizing |

**SHEP Eyes:** "You have a great grasp of how to structure your thoughts. Your use of headings and clear transitions makes your essay very readable. One area to sharpen is your conclusion style. Instead of just restating your analysis, try to link the final result directly to the elements you just proved."

---

### Overall Feedback (Attempt 2)

This is a passing answer, but it falls short of a top-tier performance because the rule statements are generalized rather than element-specific, and the analysis often groups concepts together instead of applying them in a granular fashion. To improve, you must move beyond broad assertions and demonstrate a systematic application of each legal element to the specific facts provided in the prompt.

**Issue 1 (Duty to Act):** Your conclusion that a duty to rescue was created is correct, but your analysis is incomplete because it fails to explicitly link the specific facts of the relationship to the required elements of the exception.

**Issue 2 (Negligent Entrustment/Hiring):** Your conclusion regarding employer liability is correct, but your analysis is too generalized. Break down the elements of negligent hiring and entrustment individually.

**Issue 3 (Wrongful Death/Survival):** Your conclusion is correct, but your rule statement and analysis lack precision. A stronger answer would clearly distinguish between wrongful death (survivors' losses) and survival action (decedent's pre-death damages).

---
---

## Side-by-Side Comparison

| Metric | Attempt 1 | Attempt 2 | Delta |
|--------|-----------|-----------|-------|
| **Band** | **2/6** | **4/6** | **+2 bands** |
| Raw Score | 0.301 | 0.743 | +0.442 |
| Calibrated Score | 0.301 | 0.773 | +0.472 |
| Confidence | 0.367 | 0.793 | +0.426 |
| Issue Spotting | 35% | 100% | +65% |
| Fact Usage | 14% (display) | 80.5% | +66.5% |
| Rule Statement | 28% | 76.5% | +48.5% |
| Conclusion | 35% | 89.5% | +54.5% |
| Analysis Depth | 9.8% (display) | 35.4% (display) | +25.6% |

### Issue Scores

| Issue | Attempt 1 | Attempt 2 | Delta |
|-------|-----------|-----------|-------|
| Duty to Act | 0.00 (missed) | 0.78 (satisfactory) | +0.78 |
| Negligent Entrustment/Hiring | 0.00 (wrong theory) | 0.90 (satisfactory) | +0.90 |
| Wrongful Death/Survival | 0.90 (strong) | 0.70 (satisfactory) | -0.20 |

### Key Changes Between Attempts
1. **Identified duty to act** -- used the no-duty-to-rescue general rule + special relationship exception (was entirely missing)
2. **Used correct theories** -- negligent entrustment for Ms. Fox (was "parental liability"), negligent hiring for Club (was "vicarious liability")
3. **Shorter and tighter** -- 824 words vs 1,119 (dropped the attractive nuisance tangent)
4. **Wrongful death slightly weaker** -- still omits survival action as a separate claim, and the rule statement became less precise
5. **Remaining gap** -- analysis depth is still the bottleneck (35.4% display); the "why" bridge between rule and conclusion needs more development across all three issues